1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on April 26, 201 by the preceding district court with respect to D's auction of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff drafted a certificate of borrowing KRW 70,00,000 from the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 2,100,000 per month interest and due date set as October 30, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, the Defendant remitted KRW 63,650,00 to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 2,100,00 to the Defendant, and from August 30, 2010 to July 27, 2012, the “date of satisfaction of performance” column in the “date of satisfaction of performance” column in the “date of satisfaction of performance” column in the “date of satisfaction of performance” column in the “date of satisfaction of performance” was paid to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Jeonju District Court D for real estate in the name of E, which was offered as security for the loan claim against the Plaintiff. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant submitted a claim statement of the total of KRW 35,000,000 and interest KRW 49,738,356, total of KRW 84,738,356.

On April 26, 2017, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes all the remaining KRW 52,807,214 to the defendant after deducting the execution expenses from the proceeds of sale of KRW 55,00,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

Accordingly, on April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff made a statement of demurrer against distribution of KRW 11,00,000, out of the Defendant’s dividend amount, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 2, 2017.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The defendant asserts that the amount of principal lent by the defendant was set at 3% per month interest rate and lent to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 70 million.

(However, there is no dispute as to the effect that the portion exceeding 30% per annum as provided by the Interest Limitation Act is null and void. The Plaintiff prepared and delivered to the Defendant a certificate of loan with a face value of KRW 70 million, and thereafter paid 2.1 million each to the Defendant eight times from August 30, 2010 to March 31, 2011 is as seen earlier.

However, on July 30, 2010, the Defendant is not a KRW 70 million stated in the loan certificate, but a KRW 63.65 million stated in the loan certificate.